The 2018 Winter Olympics: Divided We Stand

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea is a major political as well as sporting event. The Olympic spirit of peace will be on full display when the North and South Korean teams enter the stadium together and even play together. But the new euphoria on the Peninsula has reignited a political debate between Korean conservatives and liberals on policy towards North Korea. While liberals see the Olympics as an opportunity for negotiation, conservatives see Pyongyang’s agreement to attend as a tactic to gain benefits and not a genuine expression of warming relations.

The PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea, which begin on February 9, will offer moments of euphoria. The North and South Korean teams will enter the stadium together and a unified Korean women’s hockey team will compete, representing both Koreas. One can compare the current elation to the June 2000 meeting between the late South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung and the late North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. People thought that meeting might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship – but their hopes did not last long. Tensions in the Korean Peninsula soon resumed.

The attempts by South Korean President Moon Jae-in to persuade Kim Jong-un to send the North Korean team to participate in the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics took a great deal of effort. Pyongyang did not initially see that any significant benefits would accrue from its participation in the Games. Part of Seoul’s effort involved persuading Washington to ease its anti-Kim rhetoric. Ultimately, Pyongyang decided it was willing to participate in the Games to maximize the gains it can accumulate following its achievement of credible deterrence via its ICBM with a nuclear warhead.

The participation of North Korea in the PyeongChang Olympics reveals once again the political division in South Korean society between conservatives and liberals on the issue of North Korea. This division is now even more profound.

Prof. Moon Chung-in, security advisor to President Moon Jae-in,[i] represents the liberal optimist camp. This camp sees the North Korean decision to participate in the 2018 Olympics as a first step towards cooperation with South Korea. Aware as it is of the DPRK’s modus operandi, the liberal camp is willing to overlook some of the mild provocations Pyongyang might initiate, provided it does not cross any red lines. They see the Olympics as an opportunity for negotiation with North Korea, a process they understand will take time and is unlikely to run smoothly. But they insist that this opportunity should be seized and that Washington should lend a hand and support the negotiation process, even if that means delaying the yearly military drill or abstaining from any military attack on North Korea.

Prof. Kim Young-ho[ii] represents the conservative camp. The conservatives criticize President Moon’s liberal policy towards the North, even though the last two South Korean presidents – Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye – were themselves conservatives who failed to halt the North Korean nuclear and missile programs. There is a correlation between the criticism expressed by US President Donald Trump of the failure of previous administrations to solve the North Korean nuclear and missile issues and the criticism expressed by South Korean conservatives. They believe now is not the time for concessions towards the DPRK, and that the sanctions placed on it should continue and even be increased. They argue that any economic assistance that might be promised by Seoul to Pyongyang during negotiations will undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions and allow Pyongyang to continue developing its nuclear and missile capabilities.

The PyeongChang Olympics, followed by the Paralympics Games, should delay the next potential crisis until the end of March 2018, at which time the issue of the US-South Korea joint military drill will come back to the table. North Korea has demanded that South Korea not participate in this exercise. While Washington was willing to postpone it until after the Olympics, it will not approve a further request by Seoul to postpone for the sake of inter-Korean negotiations. The Trump administration will not support a second delay because it might be interpreted as allowing Pyongyang to dictate the rules of the game.

Should that occur, President Moon will face criticism not just from Korean conservatives for appeasing the North, but from Washington and Pyongyang as well. Moon’s dilemma is stark: either participate in the military drill and terminate the dialogue with Pyongyang, or delay the drill, continue the dialogue, and intensify the dispute with Washington.

As Trump administration officials discuss a possible “bloody nose” limited attack on North Korea, Moon cannot disengage himself from Washington. Despite Seoul’s objections, Moon has little chance of convincing Washington not to pursue such an attack.

Dr. Alon Levkowitz, a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is an expert on East Asian security, the Korean Peninsula, and Asian international organizations. Email: [email protected]

Featured Articles

Moderate leaders warn that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may turn from a national conflict into a religious one. Right-wing leaders claim it has been a religious conflict from the start. Both approaches have been applied to the Temple Mount crisis, and both are affected by a totalist perception of the understanding of the religious imperative.

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.

North Korea’s nuclearization has implications for Israel’s nuclear deterrence posture. There are several plausible means by which a nuclear conflict could arise in the Middle East. It may be time to consider a phase-out of Israel’s “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” and to focus Israeli planning around evaluations of enemy rationality.

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Many American detractors of Israel begin by citing that Israel receives the lion’s share of US military aid. The very suggestion conjures the demon of an all-powerful Israel lobby that has turned the US Congress into its pawn. But these figures, while reflecting official direct US military aid, are almost meaningless in comparison to the real costs and benefits of US military aid – above all, American boots on the ground. In reality, Israel receives only a small fraction of American military aid, and most of that was spent in the US to the benefit of the American economy.

The Oslo diplomatic process is the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history and one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians. Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn, the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.